Brett, thanks for posting this. I perused the report briefly, but didn't see any links that listed the warmest years in rank order. Do you know of a link for that? Reply: I'll look

I wonder, when these measurements and reports are prepared, do they take into account the Heat Island Effect? Forget the Urban part of it. I live near a relatively small city. The official temp station is at the local university. 25 years ago, there wasn't that much around the university. Now, it is surrounded by a good bit more asphalt, buildings, etc. Even the monitoring location on campus has been encroached upon by more buildings and asphalt/concrete. I seriously don't see how this could NOT affect the "observed" temperature.

As an exercise, I have monitored these temperature readings against my weather station at home - which is several miles away in a more rural setting. The highs and lows are generally always off by 1-3 degrees. The university monitoring station is always warmer.

I know it's been posted before, but the site www.surfacestations.org is attempting to log monitoring sites and the conditions around that site. Just looking through that site for locations in SC (where I am) I see a few sites that I suspect are registering elevated temps due to their proximity to buildings, asphalt, etc.

That's one of my concerns with surface station observed data. I believe it is somewhat skewed. Just looking through the pictures of other sites than my local one, it is also evident that the level of skewing would vary greatly. Mainly because it would be a factor of building/road/parking lot/air conditioner proximity and the thermal mass of those objects. Remember, I'm just talking about one southern state. During the summer we have lots of direct sunlight and high humidity. At night, it doesn't cool off that much. With these factors, large brick buildings, asphalt and concrete surfaces continue to radiate thermal energy. Due to the high humidity and high relative overnight temp, these objects do not cool that quickly and (I would believe) tend to affect the overall nighttime reading for these stations. Not to mention the daytime effect.

Evidently, this group didn't read the paper I posted on the previous thread.

According to the headline, Greenland thaw biggest in 50 years - report. Another classic example of drawing your line and then, and only then, plotting your data. Seems that if maybe they had gone back 100 years, the headline would have been somewhat different, Greenland thaw similar to thaw in the 1920s and 30s - report.

Regarding the topic above, why wasn't 2007 a new record, what with increasing CO2 concentrations?
Reply: Based on the land temps being the warmest, I think they will look at the strengthening La Nina (cooling of the equatorial Pacific surface waters) as part of the reason.

So?
That means less dependence on foreign oil and other fossil fuels, longer growing seasons, the freeing up of fresh water from melting ice.
What is the down side?
And really how do we even know that the last hundreds of years or so were a cooling stage and the earth is now returning to it proper temperature?

As an interested layperson, I have some questions for those who are qualified by there training to answer:

Do global temperatures tend to bounce around from year to year or do they tend to gradually shift over time? If it is the later I assume it would be unremarkable that the 5th warmest year on record came within 9 years of the warmest year on record.

Has the trend in global temperatures been changing? It would be very helpful if someone could link to a record of global temperatures that were all measured using the same methodology. This would give us some context, which is missing from the NOAA report. A graphic representation would also be helpful. It would also be helpful to see the ocean and land trends separately.

Do we know why there is a difference between ocean temperatures (9th warmest) and land (fifth warmest)? Could this relate to urban heat islands?

Perhaps it obvious, but it strikes me that this is where the resolution of the debate lies, in the data. I think we all agree that the mechanism by which the temperature of the globe is regulated is complex and not fully understood. It also follows from this that models of future climates are unreliable. However if we have consistent measurements of global temperature, both on the land (corrected for urban heat islands) and ocean surface and in the atmosphere, over time we should be able to discern the trends that are occurring in global temperatures. If the trend flattens and goes down over the next decade or so, I think we can conclude that the CO2 hypothesis is insufficient to explain changes in the earth's temperature. If it continues upward then maybe some of us skeptics will become believers.

Climate obviously has changed and will continue to change. The observation that ice is melting does not show that human activity is the cause. The assertion that humans are or ever can have a significant influence on climate by limiting the use of fossil fuel (a.k.a. limiting human production of carbon dioxide) is not supported by any historical record. Avoid the group-think and de facto censorship by Climate Scientists. Directly interrogate official government data that taxpayers have paid for from ORNL and NOAA as follows: If the carbon dioxide level from Lawdome, Antarctica http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/lawdome.combined.dat is graphed on the same time scale as fossil fuel usage from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.htm it is discovered that the current carbon dioxide level increase started about 1750, a century before any significant fossil fuel use. If average earth temperature since 1880 from http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html is graphed on the same time scale as fossil fuel use it is discovered that there is no correlation between rising fossil fuel use and average global temperature to 1976. The asserted hypothesis that, since 1976, increasing carbon dioxide level has caused the temperature to rise is refuted by the carbon dioxide level from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.html and earth temperature from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/temp/vostok/vostok.1999.temp.dat determined from the Vostok, Antarctica ice cores. If these are graphed on a higher resolution time scale it is discovered that the change in atmospheric carbon dioxide level lags earth temperature change by hundreds of years. If Lawdome and recent carbon dioxide data and Vostok and recent temperature are plotted on the same graph since 1000 AD (or before) it is observed that temperature oscillates up to �1.5�C (half pitch about 100 yr) while carbon dioxide level remains essentially unchanged (between 9000BC and 1750AD). This will also show that the average global temperature 200 years ago was about the same as now, 400 years ago was significantly higher than now and current rate of temperature change is fairly typical. Recent measurements show that average earth temperatures in 2006 and 2007 were actually lower than in 1998. As shown at http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf ,for most of earth�s history carbon dioxide level has been several times higher than the present. The conclusion from all this is that carbon dioxide change does not cause significant climate change. Actions based on the human-caused global warming mistake put American freedom and prosperity at risk.

Why is the data from the report not available? We could be in a ten year downward trend and all of the bullets still true. And there we are relying on others to make conclusions for us about the data.

A

Why are anomalies in Siberia, Mongolia, and Northern China so high?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/ann/map-blended-mntp-200701-200712-pg.gif

There's a lot of bias in US temperature readings, according to the investigations over at surfacestations.org, as referenced above by Greg Simmons. Could the readings in, and/or adjustments to, that part of the world be that much worse?

The rate of warming in global temperatures over the past 3 decades has been three times greater than the century scale trend.

Temperatures have cooled over the last decade - since the peak year of 1998. But that little tidbit apparently wasn't worth mentioning.

And even after adding half a degree and largely ignoring UHI effects, they were only able to bump it up to the 5th warmest? What a disappointment.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif

I'm looking forward to the January report, and seeing how they weasel their way around the near record cold in Alaska and Asia.

Hansen's NASA GISS surface station temperature data are wildly inaccurate and warm-biased due to failure to properly account for development and urbanization. See http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MM.JGR07-background.pdf. The only accurate data are the satellite lower troposphere (near surface) data, which show global cooling since 1998. 2007 was the coolest year since 2000. See http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#msu_amsu_trend_map_tlt. Scroll down to the temperature graphs and look at the "Ch TLT" graph. The right edge of the graph is 2008. You'll see a peak in 1998 and cooling thereafter.

Cindy P.,
Downsides you say?
1. How about being struck by lightning/tornado from increased severity of storms,(at least that is what I have been seeing in the Northeast). We have clients that houses are being struck by lightning way more frequently than ever before causing extensive damage in some cases. Luckily they can afford the repairs. I never heard of "funnel clouds" and "waterspouts" growing up, I know they occured in Maine rarely but from what I have seen they are only becoming more frequent.
2. Flooding- I'm sure all the people drowning each year in "historic" flooding,ex. Houston,don't see any downsides.
3.Traffic accidents- the increasing severe storms, huge fog pileups from record "warm ups", which are taking lives weekly, probably not a downside either
4. Coastal towns- houses/cottages on the shore in Maine/New Hampshire have been ravaged by storms in the last year requiring lots of repair work on houses/roads costing precious budgets-potentially lives. That "100 year" storm last year caused extensive damage.
5. Heat waves- residents of New York city love the 100 degree weather they have been dealing with(and nasty storms, even tornados in Brooklyn), blackouts, heat stroke, etc.
6. Lyme disease-never had a problem with ticks when I was child (20 or so years ago), always outside, the last few years I was surveying which ended four years ago the amount of ticks was simply astounding. Known and heard of many people that have been seriously ill from Lyme disease, my dog even has even had the illness for the last three years.
7. Honeybee population- some say the huge drop in honeybee population can be linked to pollution/climate changes. Einstein said we have 4 years left if we lost all the honeybees. What did he know? Really.
8. Hurricanes-maybe they are worse, maybe not. "Well the last two years things haven't been that bad" If either of the CAT 4 monsters last summer had hit something in the US(like refinerys/drilling rigs I'm sure people would shut up.
By the way I am a republican. Next time you take innocent lives so casually I hope karma (or whatever) gives you a little shot of "remember me". You don't know me, wouldn't be able to pick me out of a lineup of all the other brainwashed selfish Americans (and other citizens) of the world but I was not born a fool, and I would gladly give my life to stop the brainwashing of our citizens. Diebold is unbiased, vaccines don't cause autism, and our government is looking out for us. If you have any concerns about our future check out www.zeitgeistmovie.com. I'm sure you are too weak and powerless though to sit through it. A former Marine forwarded the link to me, pretty much sums up why 20 percent of Americans can't find this country on a map. God please save up from ourselves for we cannot.

The only way we are going to offset this horrific trend is to build my "TUNNELS". Computer modeling will verify the "TUNNELS" are as advertised!

Is there an ideal global temperature? In other words, what temperature is best to keep weather extremes across the globe to a minimum? If we can decide on that temperature and everyone comes together to ensure we reach it and maintain it, will hurricanes go away? Will droughts, floods and heatwaves come to an end? Since the AGW alarmists so desperately want us to lower our carbon footprints, what should the ideal carbon footprint be to achieve the ideal global temperature?

Just a few questions I ask as I consider the sound made by one hand clapping.

While this may be an interesting trivia question, it no more proves climate change than if the temp was the 5th coldest would prove there is no climate change. Alas this will be bandied about by some as absolute proof. Meanwhile it's just another data point.

Charles, let me take a stab at answering your questions.

Do global temperatures tend to bounce around from year to year or do they tend to gradually shift over time?

Both. Indeed, the very concept of "global temperature" is hard to pin down. After all, there are different temperatures at every point on the earth's surface -- and that's not counting the temperatures in the atmosphere or the ocean. The best overall measurement is an average of subsurface sea temperatures taken at a large number of locations around the globe -- but we don't have much of that data. So we add up lots of temperatures from many different sources, trying to find the best weight to give to each reading. It's kind of like asking, "How rich is humanity?" That depends on WHO you're talking about and WHEN you're asking and HOW you define "wealth".

This doesn't mean that we throw up our hands in despair and give up. What we do is come up with a consistent way of measuring that has plenty of data for it, and then look at how it changes, not how big it is. It's like measuring wealth. We don't really know how rich everybody is, but if we monitored the bank accounts of a lot of people scattered all over the globe (yeah, yeah, I know, poor people don't have bank accounts -- indulge me!) and we monitored the money going into those bank accounts, we'd have an idea of how the wealth was changing.

That's what we do with temperatures and the results consistently show a dramatic and sudden rise in temperature in the twentieth century.

Has the trend in global temperatures been changing? It would be very helpful if someone could link to a record of global temperatures that were all measured using the same methodology.

As I said, the trend is definitely upwards, and it's pretty steep. The best overall record for this analysis is Figure 6.10 on page 467 of the IPCC Chapter 6, which you can download here.

Do we know why there is a difference between ocean temperatures (9th warmest) and land (fifth warmest)? Could this relate to urban heat islands?

Ocean temperatures are more stable than land temperatures. They are responding to global warming more slowly.

what is worrying about the NOAA monthly reports is the obvious presentation straining to emphazise the local warming events data and not mentioning other data (ie No SH ice, no RSS or UAH data this time etc..) to a point where it is no longer a credible site. BTW has anyone seen the NOAA temp site data? or do they use GISStemp (even worse most of 2000 on data missing)/ Also has anyone noticed the prolonged delays in posting Hadley temp data for december 2007 (still not up, usually done by 5th of next month)

The Brit Met Office makes it the 7th warmest/coldest since 97. Same data ?

This is the order from 1987 to the provisional figure for 2007, which I garantee will be lower than show here but will probably not change its ranking. courtesy of the UK CRU.
You may be able to a cooling process in the making if you study it hard enough.

1987 0,178 15
1988 0,174 16
1989 0,109 19
1990 0,247 13
1991 0,203 14
1992 0,070 21
1993 0,104 20
1994 0,169 17
1995 0,270 12
1996 0,138 18
1997 0,347 9
1998 0,526 1
1999 0,302 10
2000 0,277 11
2001 0,406 8
2002 0,455 4
2003 0,465 3
2004 0,444 5
2005 0,475 2
2006 0,422 6
2007 0,414 7

One thing to note on the graph, 2007 was the warmest year ever for global land temps.

To Chris Crawford,

Since you've been asking people to "take their best shots" at disproving AGW and you lay out the statement that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it can be undeniably proven that it will warm things up with everything else equal, several people have taken your bait. The problem with your challenge is that you make a huge jump that by showing it is true in a small, closed system, then it must have a hugely noticeable (and negative) effect on the massive system that is the earth.

All things equal, CO2 in the atmosphere would make it cooler than any CO2 in the atmosphere. But the fact is, for life to be sustained we need greenhouse gases and other heat sinks to keep a certain amount of heat on the planet. If you combine the amount of water vapor, CO2, methane, and any other greenhouse gases with the heat holding properties of the world's oceans, land surfaces, concrete, etc., there will be an equilibrium as to how much heat gets radiated back out of the total heat put in. C02 enters into this equation, but how much? Being that even the IPCC admits little is understood about these properties and that the effects of all greenhouse gases is not additive, don't you think that if your simple experiment of poking a hole in a ball, painting it and pumping CO2 into a controlled environment proved anything, they would've done it by now? If that proved or disproved this whole matter, there wouldn't be 90% CIs all over their reports.

Assuming all data is accurate and the average 20th century temperature was 52.4 F and in 2007 it was 53.8 F, we can convert that to Kelvin and see the percent increase since Kelvin measures absolute temperature. 52.4 F = 284.5 K. 53.8 F = 285.3 K. That would mean, in 2007, there was 0.28% more heat in earth's atmosphere than the average 20th century measurement.

Now, as a skeptic (by the way, I am skeptical of the claims made by both sides of the argument), how much of that 0.28% increase in heat is attributable to CO2 increase. I ask either side to show me a definite answer. In other words, if instead of there being 380 ppm CO2, there were still between 200-280 ppm CO2, how much difference would that have made in that net increase?

There are so many factors not fully understand (as evidenced by the daily findings in ongoing studies) that contribute to the earth's temperature that I don't believe we can answer my question yet.

The reason I don't fall into the camp of taking the drastic measures that some want to take is that intuitively it seems that CO2 is not going to overwhelm every other factor that goes into whatever unknown equation it is that determines how much heat the earth's surface holds. Theories, after all, are based on an intuitive idea; your theory is based on your intuitive idea that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, greenhouse gases cause more heat to be retained, so increasing CO2 warms the earth. The other problem is that CO2 is part of the system, so we can't just say all other things are equal because CO2 may affect those very "other things," i.e. feedback mechanisms. If AGW can be proven, there is still another monumental task of proving that the measures necessary to counteract the problem outweigh the negative consequences of taking action. We could cut off all CO2 emission tomorrow and throw civilization back 300 years; I highly doubt the benefits of zero CO2 output outweigh the consequences of having no modern technology. There are a lot of gaps in the argument that CO2 traps heat, we're increasing CO2 so we're trapping more heat, therefore the world is going to end as we know it.

Compared to what and how?

What is "normal" anyway?

What is the temperature of the earth supposed to be and why?

Most of the averages contained in this report are short-term averages of a mere 29 years (either '61-'90 or '71-'00). Including 30's and 40's would make things seem a whole lot less bleak.